If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

There are all sorts of rules “under atheism”. You’ve got a bunch of atheists telling you as much. Subjectivists rules, relativists rules, objectivists rules. In two of those types of rules, there’s even a decider, explicitly. In one of them, there isn’t, by definition.

Insomuch as we’ve come full circle it is down to you having prepared yourself to argue with a different set of propositions than the ones you’re actually encountering. Essentially repeating yourself on a loop despite those objections having no weight to the positions you’re actually encountering.

That there are no rules you’re “bound” to accept…like gravity…is a given under -every- moral understanding…with or without gods.

[AngelThMan]

There are all sorts of rules “under atheism”.  You’ve got a bunch of atheists telling you as much.  Subjectivists rules, relativists rules, objectivists rules.  In two of those types of rules, there’s even a decider, explicitly.  In one of them, there isn’t, by definition.

Insomuch as we’ve come full circle it is down to you having prepared yourself to argue with a different set of propositions than the ones you’re actually encountering.  Essentially repeating yourself on a loop despite those objections having no weight to the positions you’re actually encountering.

That there are no rules you’re “bound” to accept…like gravity…is a given under -every- moral understanding…with or without gods.

I reject all those so-called rules. What have I don't wrong? I don't care about anyone's opinion. I want to know what I'm doing wrong objectively

[The Grand Nudger]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them? It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x. We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what? No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them?  It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x.   We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what?  No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

Like I have said, he wants some weird secular version of divine command theory, a morally bankrupt moral system.

[Nay_Sayer]

There are all sorts of rules “under atheism”.  You’ve got a bunch of atheists telling you as much.  Subjectivists rules, relativists rules, objectivists rules.  In two of those types of rules, there’s even a decider, explicitly.  In one of them, there isn’t, by definition.

Insomuch as we’ve come full circle it is down to you having prepared yourself to argue with a different set of propositions than the ones you’re actually encountering.  Essentially repeating yourself on a loop despite those objections having no weight to the positions you’re actually encountering.

That there are no rules you’re “bound” to accept…like gravity…is a given under -every- moral understanding…with or without gods.

I reject all those so-called rules. What have I don't wrong? I don't care about anyone's opinion. I want to know what I'm doing wrong objectively

[Kitan Etos]

Some people, unfortunately, need their hand held across that virtuous road.

[Sheldon]

There are no rules under atheism. 

Sheldon:

This again implies there are objective moral rules under theism, this remains an unevidenced and incorrect statement. That you want a deity to have handed an archaic superstition moral absolutes is not an objective statement about reality. 

That makes you the arbiter.

Sheldon:

Halelujiah, he's finally got it. Yes moral agents have to have the ability to understand they are faced with choices. 

If a baby kills someone, it has done something wrong even if it doesn't know it.

Sheldon:

If I pick a rock up and beat someone to death with it, has the rock done something wrong?

Though if there are no moral rules, the baby has done nothing wrong.

Sheldon: 

What moral rules, where are these coming from?

I guess we've gone full circle. Imo you have not established a moral ground I'm required to obey

Indeed, but then neither have you or any deity. Luckily he has his own reason, and that is all he needs to weigh consequences and assess moral turpitude.

[AngelThMan]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them?  It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x.   We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what?  No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

Why are they wrong? All I've heard is: subjective morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them?  It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x.   We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what?  No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

Like I have said, he wants some weird secular version of divine command theory, a morally bankrupt moral system.

That may be the case, it does seem like that’s the only thing we could conclude from his insistence on a decider…but if that is the case, then he doesn’t actually reject these so called rules. He accepts subjectivism, which works with or without gods. If that is the case, what he rejects is objectivity.

There would still, ofc, be people who do not follow those rules. They’ve done nothing objectively wrong, but if objectivity is irrelevant this doesn’t mean much.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There are no rules under atheism. 

That makes you the arbiter.




If a baby kills someone, it has done something wrong even if it doesn't know it.




Though if there are no moral rules, the baby has done nothing wrong.



I guess we've gone full circle. Imo you have not established a moral ground I'm required to obey

Indeed, but then neither have you or any deity. Luckily he has his own reason, and that is all he needs to weigh consequences and assess moral turpitude.

No thinking is bad you need a sky daddy to blindly obey . . . .Lol